Universities are already increasing their fees above £9000

FIne Art is Oxford - I stated that.

Also re Medicine not being vocational, and you not trusting Wiki when it says it is

Here's a different source:
"Medicine is a vocational degree"
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/medicine

No - everyone would be able to attend eventually. Those who can't afford it at first will have to find a job (yes, a JOB) and save up. This will teach workshy little oiks that they can't have everything handed to them on a plate and have to work hard before they reap the benefits. It will also discourage those who aren't cut out for uni from going, saving them from wasting three years of their life.

What's the unemployment rate for CompSci grads?

Agree about languages though.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But thats competition over how much money the students parents have, not how high their grades are
Snob.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Agreed. It's outrageous how these selfish students are spending the taxpayers money on drinking, partying and holidaying and then have the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to claim that they're poor. It's all take, take, take with students, and they give back nothing but a horrific attitude. Chuck them out on the streets where they belong.

quack quack oops

dammit
but your graph lacks detail.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Graduate+Prospects&s=computer+science will tell you that RG unis have extremely high graduate prospects for CS, rivalling vocational courses.

Polar Studies ? (@Snufkin )

Depends how you define well-established. English started to be taught at some universities in the early 19th century, but the first English BA wasn't offered until the turn of the century. English degrees have in been around for about 100 years whereas Media Studies first appeared in the 1960s - is a difference of only 50 years enough to claim one subject is established and traditional, and the other is not? I don't think so.

English used to be talked about the way media is now
"The first problem to contend with was the contempt in which English studies were held at the university. Seen as the ‘soft option', a woman's subject, and the ‘poor man's Classics', it was derided for its supposed lack of substance, and for the problems it was thought to present in terms of assessment. E. A Freeman, an opponent of the proposed School, warned of devoting an Oxford institution to ‘mere chatter about Shelley': ‘There are many things fit for a man's personal study, which are not fit for University exams. One of them is “literature” (…) we cannot examine in tastes and sympathies'. In fact, even some of those who stood up for the School defended it in derogatory terms. Thus, it was argued that an English School would not interfere with the‘Greats' School and, furthermore, that ‘it would be really advantageous if it drew off the weaker candidates.' Similarly, one commentator recommended the School on the condescending grounds that ‘ the women should be considered, and the second and third-rate men who were to become schoolmasters.'"
https://www.academia.edu/2550098/A_Short_History_of_the_Oxford_English_Faculty

I can understand Cambridge ect demanding more but Kent .....

Wiki: In a letter to a friend, describing America, Freeman wrote, "This would be a grand land if only every Irishman would kill a negro, and be hanged for it".

Turns out he died of smallpox. Such a shame.

Apparently the teaching is very good - as is often the case with non-research intensive universities.

I guess so I mean I can't comment cause I don't go there lol

I know plenty of alumni.

The point being that while universities at the top of the rankings are wise choices for a number of reasons, it is no secret that, generally, with some exceptions, the less research-focused a university is, the more dedicated its staff are to teaching and student learning.